Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status
From our private database of 16,500+ case briefs...

State v. Guilbert

Supreme Court of Connecticut
306 Conn. 218 (2012)


At 11:30 pm on October 8, 2004, William Robinson was shot in a bar at which Cedric Williams and Terry Ross were also present. At 12:40 a.m. on October 9, 2004, police observed Brady Guilbert (defendant) running away from the bar wearing a black or blue jacket. At 12:51 a.m. that same day, the police found Ross’ car crashed into a tree. Ross and Williams were found in the car shot in the head. Both died from their wounds. It was later determined they had been shot by the same gun that had shot Robinson. Later that evening, Robinson identified Guilbert as the shooter. Nine days later, Lashon Baldwin saw Guilbert’s photograph in the news and told police that she had seen him running out of Ross’ car the night of the shooting wearing a black jacket. Her cousin, Jackie Gomez, corroborated Baldwin’s testimony at trial. Baldwin and Gomez both knew Guilbert personally prior to that incident. One day later, Scott Lang saw Guilbert’s photograph in the news and later testified at trial that Guilbert had shot Robinson at the bar while wearing a black jacket. Before the trial took place, Guilbert sought to introduce expert testimony of a doctor who would have testified as to how stress affects memory, how there is a lack of correlation between confidence and accuracy of memory, and how a person who obtains information about an event after the fact may mistakenly believe that same information was obtained earlier. The trial court precluded the expert’s testimony, on grounds that, according to State v. Kemp, 199 Conn. 473 (1986) and State v. McClendon, 248 Conn. 572 (1999), the average juror is already aware of factors that affect the reliability of eyewitness identification. Guilbert appealed, arguing the trial court should have allowed him to present expert testimony on the fallibility of eyewitness identifications.

Rule of Law


Holding and Reasoning (Palmer, J.)

Concurrence (Zarella, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 410,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 16,500 briefs, keyed to 223 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Questions & Answers

Have a question about this case?

Sign up for a free 7-day trial and ask it

Sign up for a FREE 7-day trial